Guns Shoot 200 Times Faster Than At The Time Of The 2nd AmendmentThe argument proves too much. If the argument is that the Constitution applies to technologies that existed when the Constitution (or its relevant amendment) was adopted, then guess what does not qualify for constitutional protection under the free press provision of the First Amendment?
Did the Founding Fathers have these kind of civilian killing machines in mind back in 1791?
As after any major shooting incident, the Second Amendment to America’s constitution is once again the subject of a major national debate. The amendment, which famously guarantees your right to “keep and bear arms,” was penned in 1791 by our Founding Fathers, who—after being routinely disarmed by the English in the 18th century—wanted to prevent more federal government encroachment. At the time, it was immensely sensible.
Now, more than 200 years later, the world certainly has changed. But questioning the wisdom of that amendment is political sacrilege, no matter which side of the spectrum you’re on.
The rifle of choice back in the late 18th century was the Brown Bess, a flintlock musket that was widely used by both sides during the American Revolutionary War. It wasn’t the most efficient weapon; a trained marksman could fire about four bullets a minute and had to manually reload after each shot. Essentially, if someone missed on their first shot, you had an opportunity to escape—or even run up to your attacker and punch him in the face.
The answer is: Everything.
Unless you are reading the news on a newspaper that was printed with hand-set type on hand-made paper by the use of a Franklin-style printing press (or you heard about it from the Town Crier), you are getting your news and such by methods that didn't exist in 1791. By the argument of Mr. Ryan Beckler, only those two methods of news delivery qualify for constitutional protection.
So if Congress wanted to forbid the use of glossy paper or rotary presses or ban radio/television/cable/Internet, they're free to do that.
Which is an argument that should give Trump a hard-on, because that's pretty much what he'd like to do.
7 comments:
I have seen so much hoopla lately about 'rate of fire' too. You'd think the AR rifle was made by GE and had a truck full of ammo every time.
w3ski
It's not about the tech, it's that the second amendment is already null and void. We infringe on people's rights to own grenades, surface to air missiles, and nukes. Everyone, even the NRA and the most strident constitutionalist, agrees to this.
Now that the second amendment is dead, we can talk sanely about what kind of society we want to live in.
So basically, you are saying the constitution as written means you have the right to own any weapon whatsoever including surface to air missiles, and nuclear weapons, as well as automatic weapons that can fire off hundreds of rounds a minute.
Maybe it is time to change the fucking second amendment.
They do forget the 'well regulated militia' part in focusing on the arms available at the time. And that well regulated militia was instead of a standing army, like the British one that they were about to go up against, the one they thought was such a dangerous tool if it came under the command of tyrants.
The miltia, as seen in the 18th century, was to ensure that the states and the people had to resist tyranny. The National Guard is not the militia, for it can be federalized at the drop of a hat.
Let me start by saying that Comrade Misfit is grossly misstating the truth when he says that the second amendment was about resisting tyranny. And let me continue by pointing out that the entire argument here is nonsense, based on a deliberate right wing distortion of what the second amendment means. The writers of the Constitution explained that in the Federalist Papers, and it is nothing remotely resembling modern propaganda intended solely to sell guns. The "well regulated militia" was intended to be regulated by the Federal government, and that included choosing its members, excluding officers, who were to be picked by the States, and it also included supplying arms to its members, the same way the government does for soldiers today. It explicitly did not include all adult males, or whatever garbage right wingers claim now, and more importantly, the word "own" was perfectly well known in 1783; nowhere does the amendment mention the right to own weapons. It is time that we reclaim the real meaning of this amendment, and stop using it as an excuse for arms manufacturers to profit from civilian mass murder.
Green Eagle,
I don't know who, really, you intend to persuade in dropping a comment on a post that is nearly seven years old.
But your point is nonsensical. Nobody, from the time of the Sumerians until the present day, has ever disputed the right of a national government to have a militia or an army. The Founders knew that and they provided for that in the base text of the Constitution (Article I, Section7, Clauses 12 & 13). So, by your logic, the Second Amendment is superfluous, which implies a level of stupidity in the Founders that is unsupportable.
Furthermore, the idea that the Second Amendment is the only amendment in the first eight amendments enumerated in the Bill of Rights that does not confer rights on individuals is a far stretch.
Post a Comment